cbmclean

I was amused to see that by week 6 on the CFS weeklies the giant ridge N or Hawaii has migrated to a somewhat less unfortunate position.  February will save us.  Well maybe you guys.  SE is probably still screwed.

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

Why can’t there be analysis without some people exaggerating it to extremes. Good or bad. When someone says the pattern looks good suddenly they promised a blizzard. When someone says it looks bad suddenly they cancelled winter. Nobody punted January today. I’m glad HM is optimistic. But he also thought it would snow around the holidays.   He did nail the -AO period but he missed the pac muting it’s impact.  He also missed the AO then going positive again before the pac relaxed. No one is perfect. I say that because the only thing people said, including myself, was that if (somehow everyone misses the if) we get a prolonged central pac ridge with +AO/NAO pattern that’s a really bad sign for winter. And guess what it is. Doesn’t mean we will. Long range guidance is wrong a lot. But if 15 days from now we’re dealing with that look, HM is probably wrong and this winter is toast.  

But im not against him.  I want it to snow.  I hope he is right!  But seeing a huge central pac ridge and +AO develop as we head into January isnt a good thing.  Anyone who thinks that’s no big deal is kidding themselves.  But we still have a long way to go before it’s time to give up.  

 

Based on all the information you have at your disposal, together with your years of experience, what is your conclusion about the probability of the Doom pattern verifying at approximately the level of doom being depicted now?  For example, in the CPC long 1 - 7 and 8 - 14 day out looks, they assign a measure of confidence ranging from 1 - 5 based on numerous factors

1 hour ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Agree with this. Which is why I'm taking the GEFS snowfall means later in the LR with a grain of salt. All ens means are strengthening and anchoring the central PAC ridge and any sign of a -AO appears transient and more a function of the PV wobbling around the HL. Like you said, plenty of time but the looks we are seeing certainly arent giving me a warm fuzzy feeling right now. Normally I would say meh its post 240 hours but when the ens are unanimous irt specific features....

Looking at tropical tidbits, I only see the EPS out to 240.  But I saw on Wikipedia that it goes out to 15 days, and I think I have seen others discuss the bad pattern showign up in the EPS post-240.  Does TT only have access to truncated amounts of EPS data?

Well I see that the GEFS is up to its old tricks, offering us a glimmer of hope.  Sometimes I think it and the EPS are sentient and play a "good model, bad model" routine.

57 minutes ago, LP08 said:

TPV is parked over Greenland.

Thanks.  The TT color scheme makes it much less obvious.  I was also expecting a tighter gradient.

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

There are some hints in the long range the PV might retreat across the pole. That’s far from ideal and would limit cold potential BUT it would allow ridging across Canada and I would take that wrt snowfall mid winter than the pac ridge raging +AO combo. 

As I mentioned I am embarking on the process of trying to seriously lead to read the charts.  I was looking at the 12z EPS at 240 and could not see a TPV at all.  Am I missing it?  Got a new tablet and I haven't yet figured how to copy and paste images or I would share it.I

By the way what site do you use for model output?

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

There are some hints in the long range the PV might retreat across the pole. That’s far from ideal and would limit cold potential BUT it would allow ridging across Canada and I would take that wrt snowfall mid winter than the pac ridge raging +AO combo. 

Taking a break from your break?

29 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I was thinking “if that warm water really is driving that what happens when it finally freezes over”. Well....

I was thinking that the ice would still be much thinner than normal there and thus subject to higher heat flux from the water.  Apparently not enough to maintain a ridge.

Summary of MA thread feeling for today:

Apocalyptically bad pattern incoming.  Not only is it horrible, it is the kind of pattern which tends to get dug in for months at a time.  Strong Objective-based evidence for fearing for all of January.

Is there anyplace online where EPS 2m temp anomalies are freely available?

6 hours ago, Eskimo Joe said:

I think @Bob Chilland @psuhoffman mentioned this before.  Worth a read:

 

 

So are we heading to what they would classify as an Arctic Low?

9 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

@cbmclean I think you asked about JB once...so something he just did this evening is an example of why he is lower than dog excrement. 

He posted a blog write up where he cherry picks various nonsense to imply cold in the east. But it makes no sense if you actually know a damn thing. First he uses the CFS mjo. Except the CFS forecast for January is hot poo. 

He talks about mountain torque feedback issues on the EPS except the GEFS and GEPS  have the same trough alignment. 

He completely ignores the ridge in the Central Pac. Then he brings up a point about the TNH that completely contradicts his cold arguments. 

I find it unlikely he is a complete imbecile so imo he is playing people.  Comforting the weenies and figures he can spin out later and so long as he keeps telling them what they want to hear they will keep coming back  

 

 

Hmm.  That is very disturbing and disappointing.  Hard enough to sift through the data as it is without charlatans making it harder.

3 minutes ago, Orangeburgwx said:

On to Dec. 2020...

Sent from my A577VL using Tapatalk
 

Actually I am looking forward to our annual March -NAO outbreak which gets us flurries.

Very quick summary of MA forum discussion today: For the foreseeable future pretty much zero chance of SE snow (outside of high terrain).  Fairly decent shot of a cool/dry shot or two.  In the very long range, models currently advertising a George Costanza pattern (ie the exact opposite of everything that is desirable).

Just now, psuhoffman said:

DCs average high is about 45 even in winter. 50 is only slightly above avg. A truly cold pattern is also anomalous. 

My averages in January are approximately 50/30.  Almost every year we have at least a couple of segments with consecutive 70+ days.  By "cold" for me I really just mean extended periods of say 45/27 and below.

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The tropical pacific (being the largest body of warm water combined with being upstream from us) is a major driver. Seeing such an anomalous ridge there also is a clue it’s a cause not an effect. Well in reality the ridge there is an effect of other things like convective waves but it’s a primary effect not secondary. And a ridge there has consequences downstream. Think of the atmospheric like waves. A ridge there , given normal wavelengths, pumps a ridge in the east.  

it’s the exact opposite of what we want...

I hope I explained that well enough. 

Yes that is very helpful thanks.  Wouldn't it be nice if that anomalous warm bubble actually verified a couple of thousand miles east but was still as persistent?

16 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

 

The guidance misses good patterns from day 15 too. And in years where we recycle good looks they cry wolf on warm ups too. (See 2013-14). But the issue is we spend way more time in a crap pattern (wrt snow) than good.  Truth is snow is an aberration not the normal here. If you add up all the typical pattern looks the majority aren’t snowy here. We get a lot of our snow from rare anomalous periods when we hit the jackpot. If you take away the rare periods where we get one of two anomalously rare patterns (an east based EPO/AO combo ridge or a west based NAO block) our average snowfall would be like 5” a year.  So they are naturally going to cry wolf on a good look more often due to more opportunities. 

Well, I am in Eastern NC, so everything you say about the rarity of good patterns is magnified for us to the nth degree.  As a matter of fact there aren't any "good" patterns for snow IMBY, there are just "less bad patterns".  It still takes a fluke for me to see anything.

That in mind, I actually "chase" cold more than snow.  And it still seems like anomalously warm patterns are picked up more consistently at longer lead times trhan anomalously cold patters.  Again I have absolutely zero data to support that. 

27 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I’m going to take my own advice and take a break for a while and hopefully things look better in a couple days. No reason to bring everyone down.  

I finally have time to start seriously learning how to interpret 500 HP charts.  Before you take your break, can you explain the negative downstream effects of the ridge north of Hawaii?

12 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

Yeah, me too and I think you're spot on about the crappy patterns. Although when something shows up good in the long range and then disappears, it's normal to remember that more often.

I actually have a working theory about it.  The GFS/GEFS and Canadian/GEPS have long been noted to have cold bias in the LR.  So then you can hypothesize that if they are consistently seeing a crappy pattern in the LR, then that means there must be a VERY strong warm signal in reality.  An interesting hypothesis that I would love to investigate after I win the lottery.

1 hour ago, BristowWx said:

Good points.  Neither of us have a chance if the LR EPS come to fruition at day 15. We will just have colder rain.  At least we can laugh about it. 

So true.  You can either laugh or cry...or move to Maine as someone suggested.

1 minute ago, Wonderdog said:

I just asked a question about the frequency. It's doesn't seem to me it's very often. Anyway, don't worry about it (lol). On a related front, if the second half of the GFS run is correct about the cold temps, I would think we can get lucky at least once. Either way, the cold air seems to be somewhat close.  

For some reason my perception is that crappy patterns tend to verify better in the LR than good ones.  Not sure if there is any objective reality to that or if it is just selection bias.  Guess what I am trying to say is, I am still worried.

29 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

How often does any LR model come to fruition? Don't worry about it. 

We are in the middle of a lights-out, Pac puke pattern which was foreseen by the EPS two weeks ago.  The GEFS/GEPS caught on shortly thereafter.  They were 100% on target 10+ days out.  So I have to disagree with your assessment.     

21 minutes ago, BristowWx said:

That seems to be less of a factor in recent times.  It’s bad for us but the SE crew really can’t even get to climo as meager as it is.  Could always be worse I guess. I would be happy where you are.  At least you have some wiggle room.  We have none.  

Interestingly, the NW third or so of NC (north and west of I-40/85) has been on a bit of streak the last 3 years or so.  I'd say quite a few places are maybe 150% climo in that region for the last 3 years.

I may have hit climo on December 9 of last year (no boos please) even though I don't think I saw another flake the rest of the winter.

Also the difference between mean climo and median climo may be even more important for us than for you guys.  Lots of years in the lowlands get nothing but a trace, but the occasional  4 - 12" events can really skew the mean.  

Alright looks like it's time to recancel January.  Might be re-uncanceled tomorrow.  Or not.

5 hours ago, Queencitywx said:

Beginning to wonder if we could have freezing fog issues in the triad and northern triangle areas on Christmas morning. 

wait what?